Although Stok Associates, P.A., v. Citibank, N.A., emerged prior to the opportunity to fully inform the issue at issue, Stok briefly referred to the merits of his petition and called for the requirement of prejudice to be completely abandoned. Recalling that the Supreme Court stated that the FAA`s objective was to “reverse long-standing judicial hostility to arbitration agreements and to put [arbitration agreements] on the same basis as other contracts,” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 80 (highlighting 2000), Stok argued that a requirement to establish prejudice before giving up goes beyond what is a “contractual clause … By the courts in every arbitration decision. Stok argued that a strong rule (the total eradication of the Prejudice Inquiry) was the only way to solve the problem: “Creating a simple standard for the waiver of an arbitration tribunal, if you participate wholeheartedly in litigation, will allow the monumental waste of scarce judicial and partisan resources] to disappear – exactly the goal that the FAA should achieve. Especially since there is no legal right to damages under the Nigerian Arbitration Act, which requires courts to interpret the procedure on demand in well-deserved circumstances, where the courts are otherwise different, has been addressed despite an arbitration agreement. It would have been in defiance of the parties to the trial and the community of law that the Court of Justice would have been respectful of the issue of waiver with a straight jacket directly anchored at the entrance; Deliver the briefs and defend the case on the merits, perhaps, as you argue. What is important in all these contexts is the court, not the arbitrator, who should determine whether the application for arbitration applies. Although there is a clause that delegates the issue of arbitration, the same behavioural defendant, who questions the obligation to arbitration, also questions this delegation clause. Moreover, the determination of the effects of the defendant`s conduct in the litigation should not be considered a matter of “predictability,” as it is normally understood. Thus, the clauses that delegate arbitrator questions to the arbitrator are not “clear and unequivocal” issues of waiver Delegates Generally see NCLC arbitration agreements consume for a detailed discussion, why the court and not the arbitrator will determine whether the defendant`s conduct prevents the execution of the arbitration application. “Arbitration clauses are generally enforceable, they cannot be used to circumvent legal provisions that must require the follow-up of submissions or thwart a formal request for a late judgment.” Id.
at 7. I have always been a little guilty for not reading the verdict before the commission, but after reading the verdict, I may have been right to focus directly on the subject that you raised, which really me off – damages for breach of arbitration, for investigating litigation at the expense of arbitration. Perhaps when the time comes, we will see what the courts think if such an issue is challenged in the Nigerian courts. He mentions that arbitration contracts, and all arbitration proceedings that result from them, are only contractual and private. Admiralty procedures and the right to stop a ship are required by law and, of course, a public right. But it shows the dangers if one fails to react in time to the opening of legal action by an adversary, even if that opening of a dispute violates an applicable arbitration agreement.